Having just looked at the LGPL more closely, it may be almost as viral as the GPL.
See also http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=104477225500003&r=1&w=2
At 08:14 12.02.2003 -0600, you wrote:
Hi Ceki,--
I concur with your sentiments.
I don't know the details of Apache's dislike for the LGPL licence but, on the face of it, it seems just silly. It is obvious to anyone and everyone what intent an author has when he/she puts their library under LGPL. It is meant to be freely useable and freely distributable with no intent to limit ones options in usage of the library (unlike the GPL). Apache needs to work this out. How can they, on the one hand, allow utilization of Sun's JDK which is more restrictive than any open source license and, on the other hand, restrict the use of an, obviously, open license like LGPL? This sort of in-fighting doesn't help anyone in the open source community and probably gives companies like Microsoft pretty good chuckle (more like a belly laugh!).
What a ridiculous problem to have! This is not what open source licensing is about.
Jake
At 11:55 AM 2/12/2003 +0100, you wrote:
My suggestion would be to use BSD or MIT. Obviously, Apache license is more than fine. Also check out the Open Software License. http://opensource.org is a good source of further information.
LPGL is apparently not acceptable although I would not be able to explain the reasons with a straight face.
Ceki
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
